Proposed waste depot in Portobello

by **Maria** » 09 Jun 2010, 07:36

Decision is now up on the dpea website

WE WON

by **Epykat** » 09 Jun 2010, 08:38

Hooray! Drinking all that tea on a Saturday morning was worth it then? :lol:

by **Puerto bella** » 09 Jun 2010, 10:40

Fantastic news, can I go to bed now?

Delighted to have represented such an articulate, well ordered and informed group of people. Give yourselves a massive pat on the back Porty folk.

by **gillian** » 09 Jun 2010, 11:55

This is excellent news. A very big thank you to all the people who worked so hard to achieve this result.

by **Silver Surfer** » 09 Jun 2010, 13:22

Congratulations to all who participated and thank you for all the hard work and hours put in. Best news yet!

by **wangi** » 09 Jun 2010, 14:01

by **Maria** » 09 Jun 2010, 14:24

by **Pal of Porty** » 09 Jun 2010, 15:59

by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Jun 2010, 16:36

by **Makaveli** » 10 Jun 2010, 03:19

by **allaboardtheskylark** » 10 Jun 2010, 23:13

Well done Marya and all involved. Though must admit I also stayed out of the way most of the time.

So what happens now, do VIRIDOR have a way forward, or down even.

What was the attitude to the traffic issues given VIRIDOR seemed to be fairly confused about this issue.

by **Maria** » 11 Jun 2010, 09:52

by **Porty** » 11 Jun 2010, 12:58

by **allaboardtheskylark** » 12 Jun 2010, 20:35

by **Porty** » 13 Jun 2010, 17:27

by **Porty** » 25 Aug 2010, 22:25

by **seanie** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:41

I've heard a rumour that Viridor might be coming back to Portobello.....

by **Maria** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:52

Just as well I've never taken my poster down then.

My heart sinks at the thought of fighting another campaign. Here's hoping it remains just a rumour and Millerhill plans proceed a.s.a.p.

by **seanie** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:56

Well it's really not an area I have much knowledge in but, the way it's been described to me, there may not be a campaign to fight.

by **Porty** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:01

How so?

by **seanie** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:15

Well...

One thing that did come up in the previous application was that, since the existing use was a railway siding, it could re-open as a railway siding tomorrow. Network Rail wouldn't need any permission for that.

With the Waste Transfer station the thing that triggered the planning appplication was the building of the shed. That application then triggered all kinds of other assessments; traffic, environmental, acoustic, odour etc.

When it came to the inquiry the only real reason for refusal was the visual impact of the shed on the Conservation Area, and short of building a neo-classical Georgian shed there's no obvious way around that. Unless....

You don't have a shed at all.

Now I'm sure there are still all kinds of regulations that would need to be met, so it's probably far from straightforward. But it was the building that triggered the planning application, not the operation. If they can find a way of operating without the shed, then they might not need planning permission in the first place.

And without a planning application to fight, how do you go about campaigning against it?

by **Porty** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:51

by **Porty** » 17 Sep 2010, 15:21

by **seanie** » 17 Sep 2010, 15:28

by **Porty** » 17 Sep 2010, 16:59

Sidestepping Edinburgh Planning Applications?

by **Maria** » 24 Sep 2010, 12:52

by **wangi** » 24 Sep 2010, 12:59

by **Maria** » 27 Sep 2010, 12:51

From today's EN :

by **wangi** » 30 Sep 2010, 10:52

by **seanie** » 15 Dec 2010, 13:05

Proposed waste depot in Portobello

WE WON!

PROPOSED WASTE DISPOSAL SITE

Re: Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Re: Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Re: Proposed waste depot in Portobello

Who is online